Another possibility, even more interesting, would be that Mangino is really M269+, but probably negative for some other SNP of the long chain that brings to the so far tested M269+, and he would be, like Romitti for L150, the remaining of these intermediate haplotypes, and also this would be a strong point in favour of my theories.

I apologize. I misunderstood this one. I thought the issue was L150 being synonymous with L51 but the concern is that might L150 be be synonymous with L23, with fN37809 Romitti being the exception as L23+ L150-.

Quote from: Lawrence Mayka

As far as I know...Almost all L23+ are also L150+ . There is only one alleged case of L23+L150- , and he (PWN78) fits well into a known cluster (CX94E) along withXQHH7, WF567, D3TNG, P7U4J, Z7AF9, T9QAG, CRQ37

I see the real problem with L150 is that it shows up on both sides of L23 as there are both L23+ L150- people and L23- L150+ people.

Quote

Due to the problems testing L277, and inconsistent results, I plan on removing L277 from the Hg R tree by the end of the year, unless some new information comes up.

L405/L584 is a triallelic SNP. L405+ is Hg P; under L23 the location mutates to the third state and is L584+. Per Thomas, the L584+ people are also considered L405+.

Seymore (108347) and Romitti (N37809) in the ht35 project are L23+ L150-, there is also a third kit Thomas found in his control testing. In addition, Thomas has ran across two kits that are L49+ L23- L150-. And to really add to the fun, one kit that is L23- L150+.

As far as I know, there are no known instances of L150+ L51- L277- L584-.

I don't think I'm getting any smarter with this, so this is about the best I can do as far as variance or R-M269xU106xP312. I'm showing results for both the mix of fast/slow markers and for the linear only (according to Marko Heinila to be good for 7-8000 years.)

The base for Relative Variance calculated below of 1.0 is R-P312.

There is no case that I can see for saying parts of L11* are older than P312 or U106. I don't see a case that parts of M269* are older either. That may seem odd for M269* to have not-higher variance, but it could be indicative that M269* is dominated by an eastern clade. However, in both of these cases, the sample size of 67 length haplotypes isn't too big so I think it is premature.

On the other hand, it looks like L23xL11 is definitely older than R-L11*, R-U106 or R-P312... I wouldn't take this as precise but my estimate is about 50% older, probably a little less because U152 shows up as about 10% higher variance (older) than P312 (which of course is impossible.)

I’d be very glad to pay for testing Mangino for M269, but do you think that VV, after I said he probably was R1b1* and not R1b1a2a1, hasn’t already tested him? He put him amongst the R1b1 project, saying to me that he was glad having found an Italian R1b1*.You should know that, when Romitti ordered the L150 test, by my input with the aid of our common friend Giuseppe Belgieri, he received the result after a few days, demonstrating that he had already been tested for that SNP. I wrote a lot about this also on this forum.Romitti's son had to wait two years for his result.

The reconstruction of this haplotype by Mayka is all ideological, by choosing some values rather than other only to demonstrate that Romitti is closer to Eastern haplotypes, mostly of Slavic area. But either L150- is important to demonstrate the origin of R1b1b2 or isn’t. If it is, this is in contrast with the L150+ of all these Slavs, if it isn’t it isn’t worth.

[/i]The reconstruction of this haplotype by Mayka is all ideological, by choosing some values rather than other only to demonstrate that Romitti is closer to Eastern haplotypes, mostly of Slavic area. But either L150- is important to demonstrate the origin of R1b1b2 or isn’t. If it is, this is in contrast with the L150+ of all these Slavs, if it isn’t it isn’t worth.

I don't know Lawrence M's theories or what you mean by reconstructed haplotypes.

Nevertheless, L150 appears to be circumspect.

1) There appears to be only one L23+ L150- person - Rometti?

2) Thomas Krahn has reported to ISOGG there is a L23- L150+ person.

Regardless of the stability of L150, I can't really do any statistical analysis on one person or a private subclade. One person does not a trend make.

1) There appears to be only one L23+ L150- person - Romitti?2) Thomas Krahn has reported to ISOGG there is a L23- L150+ person.

Mike, we have discussed a lot about this on the forums, also here and for "we" I mean me, Argiedude, the same Vizachero and others.Unfortunately I cannot see now by my PC the "Adriano's spreadsheet", having been banned from "forums-dna", but it seemed that the person tested L23- L150+ was Sutherland, but now his results are corrected. You can see. Anyway if they admitted this SNP, it does mean it is reliable, and Mayka wouldn't have worked so much for his modal. If you want I can demonstrate how it is ideological, but I think it isn't worth it.

Mike, before to calculate the variance, I think you should be sure of your spreadsheet, that, at a first glance, seems unreliable.Pretty always DYS426=11 is R-M269* DYS426=12 is R-L23/L150+ (only Romitti L150-) DYS426=13 is R-L51+and only a SNP test can demonstrate that it isn't so.

All subclades of R-P312 (and the same R-P312) have DYS426=12 with a few exceptions.

I don't think I'm getting any smarter with this, so this is about the best I can do as far as variance or R-M269xU106xP312. I'm showing results for both the mix of fast/slow markers and for the linear only (according to Marko Heinila to be good for 7-8000 years.)

The base for Relative Variance calculated below of 1.0 is R-P312.

There is no case that I can see for saying parts of L11* are older than P312 or U106. I don't see a case that parts of M269* are older either. That may seem odd for M269* to have not-higher variance, but it could be indicative that M269* is dominated by an eastern clade. However, in both of these cases, the sample size of 67 length haplotypes isn't too big so I think it is premature.

On the other hand, it looks like L23xL11 is definitely older than R-L11*, R-U106 or R-P312... I wouldn't take this as precise but my estimate is about 50% older, probably a little less because U152 shows up as about 10% higher variance (older) than P312 (which of course is impossible.)

The next step is to look at the L23* folks closer and see where we find them.

P.S. The haplotypes data file is updated at the P312 Yahoo Group.

50% older is interesting for L23. If the usual estimates for L11 are in the 4-5000 year range that would translate into something like like 6000-7500 years old for L23 which is about 5500-4000BC. Its mainly SE European and Asia minor isnt it? Also what about L51. I notice its not being talked about so much recently.

Mike, before to calculate the variance, I think you should be sure of your spreadsheet, that, at a first glance, seems unreliable.Pretty always DYS426=11 is R-M269* DYS426=12 is R-L23/L150+ (only Romitti L150-) DYS426=13 is R-L51+and only a SNP test can demonstrate that it isn't so.

All subclades of R-P312 (and the same R-P312) have DYS426=12 with a few exceptions.

I do make errors in copying and pasting but I think most of what you are talking about is not my spreadsheet. That's either the Project Admin's classification or the actual SNP results themselves.

Any kit #s that you think are errors, please reply with them and what you think they should be. I'll take your reported issues and double check their Y DNA SNP report and Project Admin classifications. If the SNP results and the Project Admin designations don't match, I'll write an email to the Project Admin and find out what they have to say. I try to keep fidelity to SNP results and let the STR's fall where they may.

Please help me clean up the spreadsheet. There are some cases that it appears Project Admins are using other testing company results. I know that was true for the Ht35 project.

Unfortunately I cannot see now by my PC the "Adriano's spreadsheet", having been banned from "forums-dna", but it seemed that the person tested L23- L150+ was Sutherland, but now his results are corrected.

In the R-M167 spreadsheet posted by Didier Vernade on Rootsweb there are only 2 DYS426=11 (Giliberti and Perez) out of 394 samples. All the others are DYS426=12.

f66862 HTVE9 Davids, having DYS426=13, should be R-L51+ if a SNP test doesn’t demonstrate otherwise.

Just to be sure I'm clear, I'm not designating haplogroups based on STRs. I think you agree with the logic that SNP results over-rule STR commonalities.

I still have a mechanism to classify by STR signatures, which I call "varieties" or what most would call "clusters". In this case people who are L23+ but L51 untested would still be R-L23 (no asterisk) in the haplogroup column, but I could classify them as "m23-1313" in the variety column, which just means 426=13 393=13 under M269+ AND L23+.

Therefore I will rule him out of the m23-1313 variety. He can't be in it as L23 derived its own branch before the m23-1313 variety formed. The guys who are L23+ but haven't tested for L51 can still be in it because it is just a variety assignment and they probably are in this cluster. We don't know if m23-1313 formed before L51 mutated or not.

If there is conflicting information on Davids from another testing company that changes things.

50% older is interesting for L23. If the usual estimates for L11 are in the 4-5000 year range that would translate into something like like 6000-7500 years old for L23 which is about 5500-4000BC. Its mainly SE European and Asia minor isnt it? Also what about L51. I notice its not being talked about so much recently.

L51* ("m23-1313") is important, as mentioned in the other posts, because it is unique among L23xL11 people and L51 is directly upstream of L11.

The WAMH motif is 393=13 426=12. Out of the L21+ people here are the counts.3868 of 4178 are 393=134108 of 4178 are 426=12

On 426 in particular, the WAMH value of 426=12 is very stable so we have "13-12" as the Western European norm.

If we go back to the bigger branches of the tree, at the base, R-M269xL23:38 of 49 are 393=12 with other ten begin 1347 of 49 are 426=11

"12-11" is the M269* norm. Probably Maliclavelli thinks the 38 of 49 is too low and therefore suspect. I'll recheck the SNP results but this is what I have from the project admin classifications.

At the next bigger branch, R-L23xL51, I get:178 of 201 are 393=12 with other ten begin 13196 of 201 are 426=12

So at L23+ we jump up a notch to "12-12".

L51* is where the changes at both 393 and 426 take place.24 of 26 are 393=13 with other two being 1226 of 26 are 426=13

We end up with two step ups so we are at "13-13" now with the L51+ mutation.

L11* is where 426 comes back into line and now we have the familiar WAMH motif of "13-12"44 of 50 are 393=1350 of 50 are 426=12

The fact that L51* has 426=13 is a bit interesting and does give some credence to being a subclade rather than a paragroup. Of the brothers of the L23 immediate family, L23*, L51*, L277, and L584; L51* is a bit of an oddball. However, it is at this level of L23+ and L11- that we see the increased diversity. Much of R-M269xL23 may died off, leaving just a subclade or two behind. However, at R-L23xL11 more lineages seemed to have survived.

The speculation to me is that that sometime after L23 and before L11 the advantage or whatever it was kicked in that allowed R-L23 to grow quickly enough to diversify (geographically or culturally). The high relative growth rate didn't reach critical mass until P312 and U106, but it started with L23.

Mike, before to calculate the variance, I think you should be sure of your spreadsheet, that, at a first glance, seems unreliable.Pretty always DYS426=11 is R-M269* DYS426=12 is R-L23/L150+ (only Romitti L150-) DYS426=13 is R-L51+and only a SNP test can demonstrate that it isn't so.

All subclades of R-P312 (and the same R-P312) have DYS426=12 with a few exceptions.

I do make errors in copying and pasting but I think most of what you are talking about is not my spreadsheet. That's either the Project Admin's classification or the actual SNP results themselves.

Any kit #s that you think are errors, please reply with them and what you think they should be. I'll take your reported issues and double check their Y DNA SNP report and Project Admin classifications. If the SNP results and the Project Admin designations don't match, I'll write an email to the Project Admin and find out what they have to say. I try to keep fidelity to SNP results and let the STR's fall where they may. ...

The R1b and Subclades project (not the R1b Ht35 project) shows several people in the M269+ L23- category. I double checked the SNP results on the ones that had 393=13 (instead of the normal 393=12 for M269*. Most were not tested for L23 so I think the project admin assumed they were M269* because they were 426=11. This could be the case, and I'm waiting to hear back but if the status remains at this I'll only use the Ht35 project classifications as reliable (assuming the cross-checking with DeCODEme/23andME that Vince V was doing) and count the other projects as not certain.. so I'll only used the Y SNP FTDNA report on those.

If there a distinction between the variance in Asia Minor and Asia compared to Europe? It would be interesting to know. The 5th millenium BC spread of developed dairy pastoralism into Europe from Asia Minor to Bulgaria may have been fairly close in age to L23 if it is 50% older than L11 clades. My own hunch is that from the Bulgaria region it spread both west and east into the steppes. I think this spread of pastoralism has been obscured by the sideshow of the steppes.

If there a distinction between the variance in Asia Minor and Asia compared to Europe? It would be interesting to know. The 5th millenium BC spread of developed dairy pastoralism into Europe from Asia Minor to Bulgaria may have been fairly close in age to L23 if it is 50% older than L11 clades. My own hunch is that from the Bulgaria region it spread both west and east into the steppes. I think this spread of pastoralism has been obscured by the sideshow of the steppes.

I'll try to pull out the variance by region but some areas, like Bulgaria, just don't have much in the way of deep clade tested long haplotypes.

Please don't assume the 50% higher variance for L23* is a precise number. I would just look at it is as probably 25% to 75% older.

Let's start close to P312 and U106 and work our way back up the ladder of L11's phylogenetic tree to look at the distribution. As we move up the cultural ties may be come more important than the geography so I'll try to show the origin project as we get move up.

"If we go back to the bigger branches of the tree, at the base, R-M269xL23:38 of 49 are 393=12 with other ten begin 1347 of 49 are 426=11

"12-11" is the M269* norm. Probably Maliclavelli thinks the 38 of 49 is too low and therefore suspect. I'll recheck the SNP results but this is what I have from the project admin classifications".

No, I don’t think so. DYS393 has a Mutation Rate higher than DYS426 and these data are reliable. If the other x12 is DYS393=11, we have:DYS393= 12 (38)DYS393=13 (10)DYS393=11 (1)Total=49

DYS426=11 (47)DYS426=12 (1)DYS426=10 (1)Total=49

For DYS393 the mutation «up» is 10x than the mutation «down». For DYS426 the mutation is very rare anyway, even though apparently with the same probability.Then to understand how we have had that R-L23 were born from R-M269* for the DYS393 value (they both have the same modal 12) is easily understandable. More difficult is to understand how was formed DYS426=12 from 11, seen the rarity of this mutation. The 2 SNPs that so far characterize R-L23 (L23 and L49.1) shall have happened amongst the very few R-M269 with DYS393=12 but DYS426=12.

For R-L51+ from R-L23* we have had that the mutation L51+ happened amongst the not few (in percentage) R-L23* with DYS393=13 but also with DYS426=13, the same very very rare amongst a population pretty totally with DYS426=12.For this you say rightly that R-L51+ seems more a subclade than a paragroup.Here we must take in consideration more the randomness of the survival of some lines more than statistics, and we cannot exclude that the lines arrived to us aren’t the original lines, but due to mutations happened by chance after that the next subclade was generated.

For what concerns my S136 I have demonstrated that it is very recent: between 800 and 1400 AD. We should inquire the same for L277, L405/M584 etc.

The fixation of DYS426=13 in R-L51+ may be due to saturation, and this is in favour of what I have said above.For what I have said, I think that to understand the origin of an haplogroup by examining its variance is useless, like also the last paper of Busby et al. has said.

More reliable is the aDNA: Ötzi is demonstrating that he was an ancient “Italian”, linked to the people that in his time peopled Italy, Sardinia, Sicily, Spain (who were probably the same “Italians” arrived like agriculturalists by sea 7500YBP), this at least for his autosomal, but also his G2a4 could be “Italian” either in its origin or from many thousands of years.More reliable is the mt: I think having demonstrated beyond any doubt that R0a, HV4, HV1a’b’c were in Italy between the LGM and the Younger Dryas, and those we find now in Middle East, till Arabia and nearby, have come from here. Perhaps we can hypothesize that with them there was also R1b1 and subclade. But only when we find an aDNA somewhere we’ll be certain of this.

Argiedude demonstrated in a map of his you can find on this site, starting from my analyses, that R-L51+ has the highest frequency in Italy and it drops out of North Italy. By your data it wouldn’t seem true, but now I think having carried other proofs in favour of my theory. And the highest frequency were just where Ötzi lived. What a pity that he hasn’t come out R-L51+, but for me it is very good also this G2a4.